don't you dare start crying, and we better keep up. that is exactly what happened. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 's q&a. canada's ambassador to the us prame, covered it government officials discussed the mexico- canada trade agreement. the chimes have sounded. time to get back to conversation. take your seats. once you get your food. you can eat and listen to us at the same time. that would be good. welcome back. and we've heard a lot this sorry to stop the music, morning about tariffs, how they by the way. are being used, whether they are having the effect that people want them to us. whether they have to be lifted

before this new agreement is ratified. so, our panelists for this session are feeling the impact and i think they are all going to have something to say about this particular subject, and others. let me introduce them first. jerry dias is at the end. he is national president of the labor union unifor, which is canadian. he's also been a consultant to the canadian government. correct? next to him is lauren wilk. lauren is vice president for policy and international trade at the aluminum association. and next to me is alex russ. he is with the association of equipment manufacturers, serving as its chief advocate on international government relations. so, thank you all for being here. the first question is easy. do we have agreement on this panel that tariffs on steel and aluminum placed against canada and mexico are a bad idea? is there a moment of hesitation? >> no. >> i just figured it was across

the board. >>it is a no-brainer. it is ridiculous. if you start to walk through it. first of all, the united states has a trade surplus on steel with canada. so, why they are slapping tariffs on canadian imported steel is foolish. if you take a look at the negative impact that is having the auto industry and on canadian steelworkers then it begs the question why? if you take it look, we probably have 25 steel workplaces in canada where the workers are on work sharing programs. the whole arguments on tariffs on aluminum. the united states can't generate or make enough aluminum to satisfy their own internal market, so you have to import it. 50% of all the aluminum used in the united states is from canada. what is the negative impact? we've got canadian aluminum producers that are putting away billions of dollars quarterly

into a fund to see how this thing unfolds. it's not only the tariffs on steel and aluminum. you've got softwood, lumber. talk about a foolish strategy. you have the united states slapping tariffs on lumber when you are building. you are in a building surplus. american consumers pay $9,000 more for a new house. which is just a foolish strategy. >>but you do support tariffs in some instances? >>i do, i exactly do. if the chinese are dumping steel and aluminum on the world market because of a state- controlled company and it is causing accountability in the united states, if they are undermining the industury, you have to get their attention. in the united states and canada, the auto industry, 25% of all cars sold in north america come from overseas. if i take a look at japan, less than 7% of cars in japan come

from outside. there has to be some checks and balances in the system. in those circumstances i think we need to talk about it. lauren, dig a little deeper. >> >>i would like to say that the aluminum industry in the united states is incredibly supportive of country exemptions for canada and mexico. our north american aluminum industry is completely integrated. we do source quite a bit of primary aluminum from canada. it crossed the border maybe five or six times as aluminum. the back and forth cross-border movement is really integral and it has been a mutually beneficial trading relationship for the u.s. aluminum industry over the last two or three decades. my understanding is that the

>>white house did this in part because they thought it would be a good thing for the aluminum industry and the united states. have we seen some smelters fired up? >>the u.s. aluminum industry covers the primary segment as well as the mid-and downstream segment. so the kinds of companies that are fabrication aluminum, rolling it into the sheet, plate, foil. the aluminum industry is pretty wide in the united states. the report focused on the primary segment of the industry that accounts for a very few number of jobs, but there have been some restarts in the last number of years of smelters in the united states. most of the investments are driven not by the tariffs, but by demand growth. we want to make sure the demand growth that we have seen over the last few years, that that continues to grow and is not

undermined by artificially inflated prices. is it being undermined at this >>point? are people going to alternative what we have seen is really products, for example? >>anecdotal. substitution, companies making decisions about their sourcing. i think there are folks who are putting decisions on hold at the moment. whether there are expansions, investment, there are a lot of uncertainties with the tariffs. while we have not seen, there is a lot of volatility and a lot of halting of investment and enthusiasm and growth. that has been the status quo. while we look out further down the road, we are doing some economic impact review of what happens if we don't leave the

current situation. >> alex,the association of equipment manufacturers, what kind of equipment do you make? >> we represent about 1000 member companies that ineffectual off-road equipment. we have about 100 member companies in canada. we employ 1.3 million americans, about 150,000 canadians. it is kind of an overall footprint. we are big users of steel. when you are manufacturing a piece of the clement that weighs thousands of tons, you need a lot of steel. depending on the type of equipment, it could be anywhere from 18.5% of the input value for agricultural, and up to 25.5% for mining equipment. are the tariffs having a >>different effect on canadian manufacturers or american or is it across the board and what is the effect? the effect is negative. >>canadian manufacturers can leverage the international

steel market better. that does not necessarily given of benefits to overcome the tears that are put in place. in the us prame prom prices are going up. we fully support a strong domestic us prame steel industry. we source a lot of steel from the united states. we have members that are 100% deal. the problem is the prices don't necessarily need to be that high for what they currently are. in the united states, we export about 30% of the equipment we manufacture here. when our european competitors are able to use the international steel market and get steel at 50% lower that we can, it's a big competitive disadvantage. >> has these deal industry rebounded because of these tariffs? >> the steel industry has hired

more people. it's important to keep in mind that there are 6.5 million americans that have the use of steel goods. there are only about 175 million -- 135,000 americans involved in production. >> so the white house rationale for imposing these was national security threat. is mexico a national security threat? is canada a national security threat? >> know they are not. the white house seems to want to achieve cutting down on excess production of chinese deal. when you put in action 232 tariffs on some of our closest partners, it does not thought about problem. it was great to see the canadian government make some moves on still coming in. you need to work with your allies to fix the problem. >> lauren -- >> targeted trade enforcement

has been a real win. what we see is a fundamental challenge for the united states. that that overcapacity of aluminum in china. the broad-based tariff that is hitting all of our trading partners has been the wrong approach to really get at that fundamental problem of chinese overcapacity. i very much agree with alex's point on that front. to jerry's point on different types of tears, you have tariff it better targeted for unfairly traded imports, those of the tariff that do result in long- term investment because they are durable remedies. where's the 232, because it came on with that executive order, it can be modified by an executive order, it is a very vulnerable tool -- vulnerable tool. it doesn't allow to make big investments and smelters. those are capital intensive

projects that take a long time to recoup your investment. >> canada a national security threat? you have the right to bear arms. you have universal hair we have universal healthcare. the point i am trying to make is that is absolutely ludicrous. i understand the debate. i understand the argument as it relates to how do we make things fair? how do we create good jobs that all countries? that is why we have such a pretty strong debate on the renegotiations of nafta because there were things that needed to be fixed. i listen to the previous panels. some people are saying the original nafta was that wonderful. i looked at it differently because pre-nafta we had a trade surplus. now we have about $120 billion a year deficit. we lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. the other side of the argument is the low mexican labor

standards and the impact that has had. when you talk about the impact of the tariffs on the aluminum industry here in the united states, my understanding is employment in the steel industry has got up about 1%. the question is how many jobs are lost as a result? if you had a 1% increase in jobs in the steel sector here in the united states, my understanding they are reopening of a furnace in alabama. the question becomes, is that more harm than good? are you losing more jobs as a result of the tariffs and you are creating? when bush had/slot tariffs on about 20 years ago -- >> you have all cited the oversupply of aluminum and steel. briefly, what do you guys want to see out of these negotiations, and other hints you're going to get it?

>> we have been really specific in our asks. we would like to see an inclusion of anobjective and excess capacity in china of aluminum. over the last year, we have seen nothing but growth and aluminum capacity in china. even under the china capacity, we have seen that continue to grow not only in primary, but in the value-added products where the u.s. really shines. we are concerned about seeing that migrate on the value chain into other products that will compete with products we're making in the united states. we tackle that with targeted trade in specific segments. that is a technical solution. we need a holistic negotiated agreement that will really result in measurable and verifiable results in overcapacity. >>if we're really trying to do with the elephant in the room,

which is china. china has put forward 6000 tariff exemptions to the united states. right now, china is shipping about 307 million kilograms of steel into the united states tariff free, while canada ships a little over 100 million kilograms of steel, tariff free. if in fact the problem is china , why are you granting them 40% exemptions on products? in canada, i think the united states has granted us about 2%. more importantly, there is a real mixed bag as it comes to what the message in the first place? what's the rationale behind the decisions? if you have a problem, deal with the problem. don't try to bring others in as collateral

damage because it just hurts everyone. >> alex, another aspect of the relationship with the chinese is the chinese have five retaliatory tariffs. >> unfortunately that is part of our sector that is the most economically disadvantaged by these trade practices with the tariffs been put in place on the china 301. farm income is at a 15 year low. you throw on a bunch of retaliatory tariffs, they lose export markets. it really drives down domestic demand for new precision agriculture which is more efficient and environmentally friendly. it's an unfortunate situation that a lot of people throughout the mid-waste midwest are facing right now. a lot of them are strong donald trump supporters. >> do you have any numbers here on the financial impacts? >> we are working on the numbers now. as we get them out i will be

sure to get them out to the press. >> we know the white house has get gotten -- are you guys full of trepidation about this? >> we are. the reason for that is that even though we don't represent manufacturers of automobiles, if you are bringing in a brake line or a piece of transmission, in my go on a suv, but it could also go on a tractor. our industry is negatively impacted by all of these tariffs that event put in place. it could be on autos and auto parts. we are trying to ratify the us and ca, as well. back of the automotive companies will tell you that the steel and aluminum tariffs are probably cussing them about $1 billion a year. if i am an autoworker in the united states that i get a profit-sharing check every year, that billion dollars equates to $8000 out of my pocket. gm just announce record profits. they will hand out huge profit-

sharing checks. that billion dollars will come out of the workers pockets. donald trump is literally reaching into people's pockets and taking out money for no reason. when we renegotiated nafta, the new nafta. but, we negotiated a $2.6 million vehicle exemption. even if they slap on the terrace, it will not impact canada. the point is we will export or import more cars from canada than from united states to canada. we are still the number one importer of us built vehicles. if you take a look at a canadian built vehicle, the overwhelming majority of the parts come from the united states. why would you mess with a system that is so intertwined, as we talked about in the aluminum industry. parts will go across the border five or six time.

to somehow say, effective immediately this is what i'm going to do, is i can work. >> did you want to weigh in on the lauren, did you run away and the prospect of tears. >> prospect of tariffs. >> we want to make sure there is a robust us north american auto industry. we are watching closely what happens with the remedy and how that impacts the structure of the 232 and us mca. all of this is really intertwined. >> i'm going to take an audience question here. while 232 tariffs are harmful, quotas would be worse. it will probably be ministered by the commerce department. what are you hearing from the administration or congress about quotas? any recommendations on how to

raise concern about quotas? who wants to grab that one? >> yes, we also agreed that quotas are potentially very detrimental to the us aluminum industry. we have a deficit of primary aluminum in the united states. we only produce about 70% of what we need here in the united states. if we were to turn everything on to full capacity, we would still not be able to meet the demand for aluminum that our producers need. putting a supply constraint on those midstream aluminum producers would be really problematic. we think that quotas, especially absolute quotas that would lead to potentially all kinds of shenanigans of imports -- there are lots of niche products, specialty alloys, and

if you are looking at buckets of code, it will be hard for united states customers to get the aluminum they need if you are under a quota system. we have been clear the administration and other policymakers that what we need are quota free. to really again focus the attention on the programmatic problem that is happening in china. >> we agree wholeheartedly with lauren statement. this is same whether it be steel or aluminum. >> there is another question here which you will have to explain to me. how is the bias product exclusion process been working for your members? what is the bias. a solution process? >> if you are a domestic company you can apply for an exclusion. so you do not have to pay the tariffs on that item. it has been a struggle for a lot of folks. it is

disproportionately hurting smaller and medium-sized manufacturers. people know the bigger companies, the publicly traded companies. a lot of the folks we represent are small to medium. there is not exactly a lot of money available to go and hire someone outside and outside legal counsel to go through and put the application together and follow up. >> i worked out really quickly to that. we have been tracking the aluminum docket which is smaller than the steel docket. the process itself is really confusing. the website they are using is not really built for this. it's not a database that is searchable. it's really confusing for the folks that are trying to apply for the exclusions. and there is an objection process. and of rebuttal process. it has become a really bureaucratic, tangled, complicated process to try to

get tariff relief for specific products you are looking for. we have also seen folks that got in early, submitted exclusion request, there has been a huge volume of exclusion request approved for imports from china. the kind of factors that bias is considering are confusing because they are not looking at kind of the purpose of the 232 remedy. they are just looking at the claims insufficient availability and not doing any additional due diligence on those claims. just taking folks at their word and waiting for the industry to weigh-in if they feel like the claimant is not valid. we submitted formal comments about things we think they could do to make that process better. they are hearing their constituents about the problems they are having with that

exclusion process. i will say there are lots of ways you can improve the exclusion process. i think country exemptions would alleviate a lot of the pressure on that system. if you are exempting countries, people would not have to submit hundreds of request for comedian canadian imports. >> >> there is unanimity amongst you that the tariffs on steel and aluminum should go off. >> the government has come out and said, from what i understand, that they will not be ratifying the new and nafta until the steel and aluminum tariffs are taken off. they should also throw in lumber tariffs as well, because they made no sense. >> i want to quiz you about the labor provisions. that your democrats don't like some of the labor provisions. you are a union guy, what do you think? >> we need to strengthen enforceability. the question is not about the written word, it is the

enforcement. within the mexican system i participated with part of a canadian team, the whole issue of labor standards was a big deal. bmw is opening a plant in mexico and workers will make a buck 10 an hour. the whole argument we made about labor reversibility, free collective bargaining. how can we assure the autoworker can afford the car that they built. there are some key pieces in this. 40% of a light vehicle has to be built with wages between $16 and $20 an hour. the question becomes, what happens if mexico does not honor the commitment to free collective bargaining? what happens if they don't start to move forward? >> did you hear the ambassador who was here a few minutes ago? he said we have legislations

pending. >> for 25 years i have heard about how we had the most progressive labor legislation in mexico. they do have some progressive labor legislation. they just did not have anybody who will enforce them. i am glad there is a new government regime. i understand the center who understands the challenges within the labor movement. are they going to do it, and will there be proper enforceability? >>a couple of questions. one, threats of the administration might cancel the existing agreement if congress does not get on it. what is the impact of that? >> it is hard to fathom, because when we were looking at our priorities for usmca, part of our challenge was having folks imagine what it would be like without nafta. when you manufacture in the u.s., you are as likely to source a component from guadalajara is elsewhere. we sell to customers all over

north america, so it would be very detrimental, it would be hard to even get our head around it. >> if you take a look at what gm is doing, and we talk about mexico, we're talking wages. they announced a new chevy blazer rolling off the assembly. there has to be a real debate about if the original nafta do for canadian american workers what it was promised to do? and i will argue no. until we fix the labor standards in mexico, then listen. if you sticking with the old nafta, or no nafta at all, i'll take no nafta. >> from the aluminum industry's perspective, nafta has been good for us to all the time it

has been in place. there has been significant growth of the industry. most of our customers are industrial customers, or their folks in the auto industry, packaging, construction. they also benefit from nafta and the free movement of goods. >> foreclosed semi plans and canada. it opened in mexico. two more are being opened. trade surplus and manufacturing. 500,000 lost manufacturing jobs. tell me why i should celebrate. >> i think when you talk about job loss, it's always a tough topic to talk about. you are going to basically have to factor in the use of technology and how manufacturing has changed. we actually have a lot of open positions in our industry that we can't tell. development is a big issue for us in both the united states and canada.

>> as you mentioned earlier -- >> that's a big issue we are facing. filling our ranks of people. >> the argument about technology taking jobs, there is some truth to it. the difference is, when you introduce robotics, you have different jobs. you will lose jobs in the manufacturing process, but you will gain jobs repairing the machinery, the robotics. 2018 was probably one of the strongest markets ever for the auto industry in north america. they sold 18 million vehicles. somebody built them. it is not as if their jobs are going away. they are just shifting. that is what the whole argument is. is there less jobs today in an auto assembly plant than there were? yes. are there still hundreds of thousands of jobs, the answer is yes. mexicans consumers by two and

40,000 gm vehicles a year. they are on the cusp are building 1 million vehicles. as for those jobs came from? >> we are going to have to leave this discussion there. thank you for a very animated discussion. [ applause ] thank you. appreciate it. >> i'm going to let you guys leave and then i am going to introduce the next panel. so katie of the cdc is going to rejoin us on the stage. she is going to get some insight from a couple of people have been very much engaged in the issues and the diplomacy surrounding us nca. around issues relating to tariffs and ratification.

she has two people joining us on this date. mark happens to be a former astronaut. we have to talk afterwards. also joining katie is david macnaughton. he has vast experience in the public and the private sector where he built a public affairs for. katie, it is yours. >> good afternoon, everybody. i think if all the canadian cameras in the back, i think everyone is keen to hear what both of you have to say with the ongoing situation surrounding terrace. before i get to that, and this is somewhat related, i have to askmcnaughton. you said something ambassador funny when you were introduced as the current ambassador. there have been reports in canada that, given the ongoing political situation, there is a

job opening in the prime minister's office. there has been some speculation that, perhaps, ambassador, you might be moving into the office to take on a senior role. any accuracy to that? >> fake news. [ laughter ]>> so you will not be leaving your post whatsoever? >> i have lots to do here with a great team at the embassy, and i look forward to continuing to do the job here. >> just for the record, you will not be heading back to ottawa? >> i was in ottawa on tuesday and i left tuesday night and i'm staying here in washington. i have no intention of going to take a job in ottawa. >> i think that is pretty clear. minister, i now have lots of reporters have questions for you , but you are doing media availability after so we'll get to those questions later. we heard that canada has

decided to delay or not ratify nafta as long as the steel and aluminum tariffs are in place? >> certainly, we want to ratify usmca. but certainly, the fact that there are tariffs still in place for aluminum and steel makes that more challenging. we would have hoped, because president trump said it clearly, that once we had a good deal in place, he has gone on and trumpeted the fact it has been a good deal for the united states. he said he would drop the tariffs, we're waiting for that to happen. >> is there a discussion within the canadian government to consider the idea of delaying ratification as a way to exert pressure? >> we can begin the implementation process as soon

as 19 march. we have an election this year in canada. we will rise as government in june and then fall have the election. i think it is true to say that our mind is going to turn towards many other topics in the months that follow this spring. and so, we would like to resolve this issue, but the fact that the tariffs are still in place does pose a challenge for us.>> ambassador, can you bring us up-to-date on exactly what is going on the on the scene to get those tariffs lifted? >> we have been talking to the administration, to various members of the administration in terms of cabinet secretaries. we have talked to members of congress and the u.s. business

community. i have been making the same point over and over again. these tariffs are hurting americans, they're hurting canadians. they are destructive and unnecessary. if you look at the process the commerce department is going through in terms of exempting people from the tariffs, what you see in that picture is that china on the aluminum side has had substantial exemptions, and canada has had almost none. i don't think that was the intention of the tariffs. it is distorting the market, harming american companies, there is no reason for it. just get rid of the tariffs. i think we will get there, i'm optimistic. whenever you look at something and say it makes the sense at all, probably, they will be removed. that is that we are hoping for

and will continue to it is number one, two, and three on my agenda.>> there is opposition from business leaders and officials and opposition from mexican officials. there's one place where these tariffs are being celebrated. that is the white house. canada has launched what the canadian media knows is a charm offensive, with ministers, or yourself, getting this message out there. it is it time to try something different, given that these tariffs are still there and we are inching closer to the one- year mark since they were implemented? >> i think there is a very important sort of information transfer process and education process that has to continue. our friends in the united

states realize the extent to which we trade as to nations, really the largest trading arrangement in the world. in over 30 states, as we all know, canada is the number one destination for the products that that particular state cells. also, i do with that is then understanding that putting tariffs on steel and aluminum may in a simplistic way sound as though you are trying to protect your industry. but, unfortunately, there are unexpected consequences that come from that that have a serious effect in the united states, as well as in canada. no mistake, we are hurting. but, i am not sure it is fully understood to what point the same applies in united states. as the previous panel has adjuster, the united states needs about 5 million metric

tons per year. they can produce at best, to million tons. they need imported aluminum. we can supply aluminum to the united states. at the moment, it is coming in with tariffs, so it makes it much more expensive. for the downstream producers of products, it makes it a more challenging situation. that is not a good situation. it is one that does not need to be in place. in the case of steel, the united states sold us, has a surplus of $2 billion in steel. we buy the most steel of any country from the united states. more than 50% of their output is bought by canada. the suggestion that there is a national security problem here is, frankly, ludicrous. >> and that has been the argument that canadian officials have been making. we heard from the foreign affairs minister. we heard from pretty much everyone in cabinet.

given that there is just one individual at this point who is making the decision on this, and given the effort the canadians have put into this -- i am not saying this is an easy position to be in the butt, is there something else the canadian government can do to make that message resonate? >> in addition to that, we did put on retaliatory terrace. and tariffs. it was not something we did lightly or easily or out of some sense of spite. we had to do that. we don't want to have to continue to do that, but we will. the reality is i think some of those are -- also. the easiest thing to do and the best thing to do is just to get the tariffs off. we don't want to have to go and refresh a new round of retaliatory tariffs on united states consumers and businesses.

but, if we are left with no choice, then we will do what we have to do. but that is not -- we are not the problem. we should be working together to make sure that those who are not trading fairly and freely are the ones who are paying the price. if you look through what has happened, the people who are winning in this are china and russia and turkey, and places like that. because they have been exempted from the tariffs way more than canada has. >> the previous panel brought it up. china, which exports aluminum and steel to the united states, is exempted from the tariffs on about 40% of the aluminum that it exports into the united states. and an even higher percentage of what it exports in steel into the united states. and yet, canada has less than

1% exemption from the application of tariffs for both its deal and its aluminum. i'm not sure that is what the united states intended. but, that is what is effectively the situation at this moment. >> you also mentioned canada's rotella terry tariffs. retaliatory tariffs. >> i think we are going to resolve this. i think we are going to resolve it in a positive way in a short while. >> what leads you to say that. >> you remember i used to say that frequently around the discussions of nafta. there were many people who said we would never get there, and we did. i don't want to go into great details, but i think we will resolve this matter soon. i hope we are, because i think wherever there is something that makes overwhelming sense, even governments end up doing the right thing eventually. [ laughter ]

>> you mentioned, ambassador, canada's retaliatory tariffs. after the terrace went into place on june 1 last year, canada announced it would one month later it would be imposing retaliatory tariffs. you mentioned those retaliatory tariffs. i noticed we are reporting that he had presented the idea to the prime ministers during a meeting on the sidelines of a meeting with the prime minister at the premiers conference in montrial. all they premiers got together to meet with the prime minister. he had suggested to the prime minister that perhaps a way to get the americans to entice him to drop the tariffs is canada should. drop its rotella terry tariffs in the hopes of drop its retaliatory tariffs in the hopes of looking good for the

united states. i'm curious if there is a discussion going on at the highest level of the canadian government as to whether someth would do. >> our position has been very, very clear. we believe that the tariffs on aluminum and steel should be dropped completely. in their totality and not be replaced by anything else, that is our position. >> yes. i mean, one of the reasons we were so successful in the nafta negotiations was because we were able to come together as team canada appeared at meant the premieres in the federal government working together, and let the business community working with us, i have encouraged premieres to come forward with their suggestions and ideas. it does not mean that we are going to accept all of their ideas. i think it is healthy to have a debate with in our country

about you know, how do we move this along. i welcome premier ford's ideas and other premieres. i do not think we will accept them all and i do not think they expect us to. if somebody has an idea, they are welcome to put it forward. >> is that idea something that has been echoed by somebody you have had conversations with in the trump administration? is that something the americans would welcome? >> it is not something that is under discussion at the moment. >> sarah not. as of sunday, president donald trump has 90 days to determine whether he is going to impose tariffs on the auto industry. i know that during the negotiations, one of the final things to be hammered out in leading up to the signing in november with making sure that canada had a side letter on the auto sector to make sure it would be protected from tariffs. a few months after november, this discussion and consideration in the white house is underway.

are you confident that canada will be protected by the side letter? >> yes we are. we believe that the side letter was a solemn undertaking from the united states with respect to the levels both in terms of the total number of cards and the number of parts. we believe that will be respected. >> are you not so concerned about any sort of ripple effect that could occur, is canada going to be able to get out unscathed if the united states decides to impose tariffs on this industry? >> well, i mean, one of the things of a said letter is a side letter came into effect when it was signed. it does not have to wait for ratification. this is of the new smca. it is ain't biting it in canada and the united dates. the reality is we are in a really advantageous position. our auto industry, both the

oems and the parts manufacturers have certainty that the path forward will be good. it is one of the things we were most pleased about. you know, not only the rules of origin, that talked about additional steel and aluminum coming from north america, not only the business about the labor rates and and the agreement. but the side letter put to bed any concerns that we have about potential tariffs. you know, i think, i think it was a major accomplishment in the negotiation. >> i suspect i know the answer to this given these circumstances, there has been some foreshadowing from the ambassador. you think there could be a resolution soon. are you concerned with how much time you sgr is spent focused on china with the discussion there. on the issue of terrence, are

they busy with another important concern for the united states and canada does not really get the attention it needs to try to get this issue resolved. >> ambassador light has or hears from me frequently regardless of what he is doing.'s neck can you enlighten the room as to sort of, i those negotiations or those talks, i? is it something that happens in person? is it a sitdown meeting? what kind of communication is it? >> as the minister said, frequently as you know during the summer, the best thing to say is that we do not negotiate in public. >> i was going to see many people in this room and many people who are watching will be keen to hear and watch and see if your prediction is accurate, a lot of jobs, a lot of industries are really being hurt by this. i am just curious, from either of you, is there any hard data right now to illustrate that

canadian jobs had been lost as a result of these tariffs? >> we are following the situation. what we are hearing from industry is that they are in the situation where they are not running at full strength. this is in terms of the use of labor, this is in terms of producing. operations are still undergoing. they are not operating at 100% capacity at a time when the economy is doing well in canada. so yes, it is having an effect. >> we are almost at time here. i want to ask both of you, and just so we are all clear, canadian elections are coming up this fall. do you both predict that nafta, nafta 2 0 1 will be ratified by the canadian government before the election?'s neck i am an optimist. i hope it will be.

it is such an important treaty for canada. with the united states as well. this will lead to greater investment between both countries and a long period of stability which i think is desirable for both countries. however, having said that, i will repeat the fact that it is a challenge with the tariffs that are in place. >> so you are still, obviously canada wants to see the tariffs remove that you are not willing to publicly share with all of us today whether canada's official position is no ratification as long as there are tariffs. >> i am not going to share that no. >> i tried. i would like to thank both of you. we are at our time. ambassador and minister, thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ]

>> we are going to take a very brief break. there are members of the media who would like to get these guys on camera. we are going to make a request that that be done outside the doors of this room. if you want to try to imagine the ambassador and minister on camera, okay? we are going to take a very brief break. we will deal with this choreography. we will get things back underway in just a minute. stay with us. ♪ >> pasadena is your quintessential southern california community.

>> there is a balance of reverence for the past, people in pasadena are very proud of going to do their business at city hall and having it be this fantastic spanish renaissance pallet. >> there is also a planetary society and caltech where people are looking into the future into galaxies beyond. >> cspan is on the but exploiting the american story. this weekend we take you to pasadena california with the help of our spectrum cable partners. known for the rose bowl and its was parade, we will talk with authors from this suburb of los angeles. >> july 26, 1943 was los angeles's pearl harbor. it was on that day in the middle of world war ii, a six log came in, i do not know from what direction. it got so discus and acrid that police officers disappeared. it was the beginning of having small related automobile accident. it was so bad mothers were dragging their children in hysteria.

>> we will go inside the jet propulsion laboratory's at caltech responsible for putting rovers on mars. >> the reason we are here is to do what has never been done before. we are paving the way for human exploration. this will be elsewhere in the solar system. >> watch cspan's city tour of pasadena california on cspan 2. on sunday on cspan3 , we will be working with our cable affiliates as we explore the american story. >> on monday, the u.s. chamber of congress held its annual summit on foreign investment in the u.s. this portion of the and that included a series of panel discussions on work first amendment issues with senator's mark warner of virginia and john hoven from the they could've. indiana governor was there as well. governor was there as well. this show is one hour.